Washington v. Rodeway Inn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROOSEVELT WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-535

Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

RODEWAY INN,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Roosevelt Washington, an Ohio resident proceeding without the assistance of

counsel, has submitted a request to file a civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who render

services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

This matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF

No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal

of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons

below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action under

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to

“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In

doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are

assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from

filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e):

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—

* * *

(B) the action or appeal—

(i) is frivolous or malicious; [or]

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted . . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte

dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or

upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the basic

federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See also Hill v.

Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule

8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual

demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B.,

727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).

Although this pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations, a pleading

that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”

is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). A complaint will not

“suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (cleaned up).

Instead, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (cleaned up). Facial

plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The

plausibility of an inference depends on a host of considerations, including common sense and the

strength of competing explanations for the defendant’s conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504

(citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se complaints “to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Garrett v. Belmont Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 374 F. App’x 612,

614 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient

treatment, however, has limits; “courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim

asserted.” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F. App’x 975, 976–77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v.

Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)).

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff alleges that, ever since he turned down a sizeable monetary settlement seven

years ago from the hospital at which his child was delivered stillborn, every house he has rented

for his family ended up being sold during his tenancy, requiring him to move. He alleges that he

has been forced to stay in hotels, and the same thing has begun happening—he “[stays] for a

minute and they say they got [a] complaint[,] don’t say what [the complaints] are and tell me I

got to go.” (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff asserts that he “applied for CMHA housing years

ago and can’t get affordable housing for [his] family” and “just want[s] the agency to leave me

alone.” (Id.) Although the Complaint caption names “Rodeway Inn” as the sole Defendant, and

Plaintiff writes “racial discrimination” as his brief description of his cause on the civil cover

sheet, the Complaint contains no allegations pertaining to Rodeway Inn or discrimination of any

kind.

Plaintiff’s allegations are threadbare and do not give rise to any cognizable cause of

action. Even if the Court construed the Complaint to allege that Defendant Rodeway Inn was a

hotel at which Plaintiff stayed, and which forced him to vacate after receiving unspecified

complaints as a pretext for racial discrimination, and even if the Court construed Plaintiff’s

allegations to advance a claim for racial discrimination under the public accommodations

provisions of the Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Plaintiff alleges no facts that would allow

the Court to conclude that Plaintiff was the victim of racial discrimination. See, e.g., Fall v. LA

Fitness, 161 F. Supp. 3d 601, 605 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (plaintiff advancing claim for racial

discrimination in public accommodations under Title II must present either direct evidence of

discrimination, or circumstantial evidence (including that the plaintiff was treated less favorably

than similarly situated persons who are not members of the plaintiff’s protected class)). Plaintiff

here has not alleged that Rodeway Inn, e.g., told Plaintiff that he could not stay because of his

race, or treated individuals of other races who had received complaints more favorably than

Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations are precisely the kind of “naked assertion devoid of

further factual enhancement” that do not suffice under Iqbal. See 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff’s

allegations therefore fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted and his Complaint must

be dismissed.

III. DISPOSITION

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4)

is GRANTED. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED

under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with

supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive

further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura

CHELSEY M. VASCURA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE